Terence Crawford signs contract for July 23 fight with Viktor Postol

Who came up with this unwritten rule that the only way to "close the show" is by knocking his opponent out at all costs, even if it means abandoning strategy?

"Postol was there for the taking". Umm, no he wasn't. Just because a KO opportunity was there at one point of a fight doesn't automatically mean it's going be there for the remainder of the fight.

Glad Crawford didn't foolishly attempt to do anything uncharacteristic just to appease meathead fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

I don't think Crawford was trying to let him last. Postol is a tough fighter and is dangerous. I enjoyed the fight. I had no problem with it whatsoever. Crawford took risks but wasn't stupid. I can't blame him for not going for the knockout at the end. He didn't want to get caught being stupid and losing.

I swear that a lot of you people don't even like boxing.

---

Yeah I think it's going that way for me. Skipping around a ring shouldn't be congratulated. It should be penalised.

---

Boxing has always been the same. Crawford fought brilliant but you are acting like he did something wrong.

---

No I'm not. I'm acting like I'm bored of boxing. It's not Crawford's fault. He did what he had to. But I can't congratulate the guy for fighting like he was up against a man who was 10 years younger and three divisions above him. Avoiding confrontation by skipping around (and around) the ring. It's just not to my taste at all.Not anymore anyway. Again, it's not anyone's fault. I'm just bored of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

I don't think Crawford was trying to let him last. Postol is a tough fighter and is dangerous. I enjoyed the fight. I had no problem with it whatsoever. Crawford took risks but wasn't stupid. I can't blame him for not going for the knockout at the end. He didn't want to get caught being stupid and losing.

I swear that a lot of you people don't even like boxing.

---

Yeah I think it's going that way for me. Skipping around a ring shouldn't be congratulated. It should be penalised.

---

Boxing has always been the same. Crawford fought brilliant but you are acting like he did something wrong.

---

No I'm not. I'm acting like I'm bored of boxing. It's not Crawford's fault. He did what he had to. But I can't congratulate the guy for fighting like he was up against a man who was 10 years younger and three divisions above him. Avoiding confrontation by skipping around (and around) the ring. It's just not to my taste at all.Not anymore anyway. Again, it's not anyone's fault. I'm just bored of it.

---

Fair enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Who came up with this unwritten rule that the only way to "close the show" is by knocking his opponent out at all costs, even if it means abandoning strategy?

"Postol was there for the taking". Umm, no he wasn't. Just because a KO opportunity was there at one point of a fight doesn't automatically mean it's going be there for the remainder of the fight.

Glad Crawford didn't foolishly attempt to do anything uncharacteristic just to appease meathead fans.

---

When youre outmatching your opponent by that much, closing the show sure as sh*t isn't sticking your tongue out and congratulating yourself before the fights over. When he was tagging pistol with counters at will, postol was there for the taking if you fight smart throw your combinations and don't hang all day which Crawford has obviously shown is within his abilities.

Uncharacteristic? Have you even watched his fights before where he stood in there with Gambia, Lundy, and others. A good comparison stature wise for postol would be the Dulorme fight. Watch that fight and this fight and tell me they were fought the same way with many of the same looks available. Too much of a coincidence to me that he starts prioritizing style or blatantly clowning once the checks bigger. Is he trying to escape without getting battered like Floyd did, no... but finding the energy to clown when he can't find find a way to finish strong is sandbagging and it's a turn off, no matter who did it before. If you're going life an death with your opponent or can't hurt him with your hardest shots or have an injury.. I can see the purpose in not engaging him. 118-107 on 2 card and 117-108 on the one that didn't deduct a point where he should have says he wasn't going life and death, and having postol off balance with several counters (even though the knockdowns were flashes) says he had this fight pretty much anytime he wanted it.

That's unfair, we weren't the ones in the ring and the nuances in those fights or the way Crawford felt physically might have made them completely different. I'm in the camp of "people criticizing this fight don't appreciate pure boxing", to be honest, even though a few people who have posted as much know more about it than I do. I'd outpoint them over 12 rounds, straight up.

That was like a shitter version of Frampton-Quigg. Postol took forever to throw his right hand - obviously because of Crawford's skill. A "shot" Ricky Burns has given Crawford his trickiest fight so far.

Oscar Valdez was very impressive. There was brief sparring footage last year of him duffing up Lee Selby. Looks the real deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

That's unfair, we weren't the ones in the ring and the nuances in those fights or the way Crawford felt physically might have made them completely different. I'm in the camp of "people criticizing this fight don't appreciate pure boxing", to be honest, even though a few people who have posted as much know more about it than I do. I'd outpoint them over 12 rounds, straight up.

---

I agree with your point, crawford could have not felt 100%. My feed cut off before the post fight interview. My criticism is not with the fight really as it is with crawford's decision to play superstar rather than just doing what got him here. Um.. maybe postol was distracted by the birth of his twins, but really I feel like he was doing his best but him and his team prepped for the crawford they saw before that fought more aggressive and showed up with the wrong plan. In that sense kudos to crawford and his team by winning the fight before even getting into the ring. It's a smart move. To me its the clowning, single shot, perimeter stuff that had me disinterested after a while. Early on, I figured he was figuring postol out and then setting him up. Then the clowning just made it look like he was playing with his food...

He's a good fighter; It was a skilled performance, its the delivery of the statement he was trying to make that was lost in translation or according to some, that is being misinterpreted by myself and others. I guess it comes down to what people consider dominance. Dominance does not have to be a knockout, but if you look like you're not taking it seriously... you're not trying hard enough in my opinion. It's just my opinion but its the same stuff as Wilder side humping in response to Arreola's body shots or that nonsense broner pulls. Crawfords too good for that, but I guess that's the ebb and flow of the sport. Some go one way and some go the other. I have a new found respect for Rigo based on his last performance... and I would have never expected that but he said he would sit in the middle of the ring and true to his word, he did still was just as effective and still slick enough to not get hit. Breaking dickens jaw doesn't sway my opinion either way. Just the same I'll hold off on any more negativity till he shows this is more a pattern than him displaying his versatility.